State v. Payne
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The later opinions applied Payne's rules on forfeiture, plain error, and voidable sentences; several mentioned it only in a dissent. State v. Profanchik held that Payne's failure-to-object rule did not apply when the sentencing error first appeared in the written judgment, after the hearing had ended. That distinction follows Payne's rule for objections that could have been made at sentencing.
53 later cases cite State v. Payne; 53 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on State v. Payne?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.
Every one of the 53 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Payne and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace